Introduction to Theodor Herzl's "The Jewish State"
by Joseph Adler
>> back
I
Herzl's goal in The Jewish State was nothing less
than the regeneration of the Jewish nation as a political entity. The task
seemed impossible. The Jews had settled throughout the world; they were a
minority everywhere, possessed no common territory, spoke many languages, and
followed different traditions; and their religious ideology had become
splintered as a result of emancipation and reform. There was no Jewish nation
in the political sense; only Jewish communities scattered throughout the world.
Keenly aware of the magnitude of the Jewish problem,
Herzl stressed the power inherent in the idea of a national territory. He noted
that no human being was "powerful or wealthy enough to transport a people
from one domicile to another." Only an idea could create the necessary
momentum. The idea of a Jewish State, he strongly believed, had the power to
motivate Jewry, for "all through the long night of their history the Jews
have not ceased to dream this royal dream. 'Next year in
The starting point of Herzl's ideology, as presented in The
Jewish State, was his analysis of the Jewish question. For Herzl, the root
of the problem was the Jew's feeling of homelessness - the sensation of being
unwanted, an alien even in the country of his birth. The sense of homelessness,
Herzl declared, existed even though Jews had sincerely tried everywhere to
merge with the national communities in which they lived, seeking only to
preserve the faith of their fathers. It was not permitted, though the Jews were
loyal patriots, sometimes even superloyal. In vain did they make the same
sacrifices of life and property as their fellow citizens, strive to enhance the
fame of their native land, or augment its wealth by trade and commerce. In
their native lands where they had lived for centuries, they were still
described as aliens, "often by people whose ancestors had not yet come to
the country when our fathers' sighs were already heard in the land. The
majority can decide who the strangers are. .”
Keeping pace with this feeling of homelessness, and often
resulting directly from it, was the phenomenon 9f anti-Semitism. The forms of
its occurrence varied from country to country, but one thing was clear to
Herzl: anti-Semitism existed wherever Jews lived in large numbers. Moreover,
the longer anti-Semitism was dormant, the more violently did it finally erupt.
"The infiltration of immigrating Jews attracted by apparent security and
the rising class status of autochthonous Jews combine powerfully to bring about
a revolution."
What were the causes of anti-Semitism? Its earliest
cause, Herzl believed, was the factor of religious differences and the loss of
assimilability during the Middle Ages. Modern anti-Semitism, he felt, was due
largely to economic factors and had developed out of the emancipation of the
Jews following the French Revolution. When civilized nations awoke to the
inhumanity of discriminatory legislation they enfranchised the Jews. However,
enfranchisement came too late. In the ghetto, Herzl noted, the Jews had
developed into a bourgeois people, and they had emerged from it as a
full-fledged rival to the middle class. "Thus, emancipation suddenly
thrust us into the circle of the bourgeoisie, and there we have had a dual
pressure to sustain - from within and from without."
Herzl was convinced that the equal rights of the Jews
before the law could not be rescinded where they had once been granted, as it
would be contrary to the spirit of the age, and would drive all Jews into the
ranks of the revolutionary parties. Hence, he reasoned, anti-Semitism would
grow because "the very impossibility of getting at the Jews only makes the
hatred greater and more bitter."
No matter what the cause of anti-Semitism, economic,
political, or religious, the results were always the same. It inevitably led to
bloodshed, poverty, destruction of property, and demoralization. It was a vicious
circle, Herzl believed, because "the pressure inspires in us hostility
against our oppressors, and our hostility in turn increases the pressure."
In The Jewish State, Herzl emphasized that the
constant oppression of the Jews would produce one positive effect: it would
weld the Jews into one united people. The feeling of fellowship among the Jews,
which had begun to crumble after the era of emancipation, was strengthened anew
by anti-Semitism. "Thus," he concluded, "whether we desire it or
not, we are and shall remain a historical group of unmistakable solidarity. We
are a people - our enemies have made us one without our volition, as has always
happened in history. Affliction makes us stand by one another, and at such
times we suddenly discover our strength."
Herzl's statement that the Jews were a Volk stirred
the Jewish intellectuals of both Eastern and
Herzl's nationalistic appeal to the Jewish people was
heightened by its Messianic overtones. Among the Eastern European Jews, in
particular, Herzl stimulated the old dream of a return to the Promised Land,
even though he had not ruled out other territories as possible sites for a
Jewish State. "Is
Throughout his exposition in The Jewish Stale Herzl
revealed an awareness of the power of nationalism, its attractions and its
dangers. "It might be said," he wrote, "that we should not
create new distinctions between people; we ought not to raise fresh barriers
but make the old ones disappear instead. I say that those who think along these
lines are lovable romantics; but the idea of a fatherland will go on
flourishing long after the dust of their bones will have been blown away
without a trace…”
Herzl also knew that there was considerable danger in
bringing Jewish nationalism into the glaring light of international politics.
His was an age of political unrest, in which strong currents of national revolt
and international rivalry could be discerned under the smooth surface of
apparent peace. Had Herzl's theory contained the faintest suggestion of the use
of force, his efforts to gain the support of both the international community
of nations and the Jews themselves would have miscarried. It was as a peaceful
emancipator, therefore, that Herzl appeared before the Jews of Europe. His plan
contemplated no force of arms. It depended largely upon international
discussion, diplomacy, and positive political action.
The very nature of Herzl's approach to the Jewish
question produced in his treatise a rejection of those solutions that advocated
the use of violence and those that ignored the question of nationalism. In the
latter category Herzl placed two concepts that enjoyed some popularity among
European Jews: the doctrine of assimilation and the ultrareligious, or
"ghetto," doctrine.
The idea of assimilation was based on the belief that the
Jews were not a people at all but only an aggregation with vestigial religious
doctrines and tenets that separated them from their neighbors. Its adherents
were convinced that the Jews would eventually become an organic part othe
peoples among whom they lived. Assimilation, they reasoned, would eliminate the
causes of anti-Semitism.
Reared in a family that believed in assimilation, Herzl
had great difficulty trying to shed its effects. His struggle with the concept
of assimilation is strongly evident in The Jewish State. Prior to
writing this treatise he even believed that anti-Semitism, if exerted steadily,
could act as a stimulant to hasten the assimilation process.
Nevertheless, it can be seen in Der Judenstaat that
Herzl's attitude had undergone a basic change and that he had taken a new
position on assimilation. He now felt that assimilation was unacceptable and
even impossible for the Jewish people as a whole. He saw that assimilation was
dependent on factors beyond the control of the Jews: a desire for widespread
intermarriage on the part of the majority population and sufficient time (at
least one or two generations) to permit nearly complete assimilation to take
place. Neither of these conditions seemed likely to obtain. The rapid rise of
anti-Semitism made this dear. Furthermore, from a nationalistic point of view
assimilation was undesirable, since the "distinctive nationality of the
Jews cannot, will not, and need not perish. . . . Whole branches of Jewry may
wither and fall off, but the tree remains alive."
The adherents of the ultrareligious, or ghetto, solution
of the Jewish question argued that it was incumbent on the Jews to remain
separate from other peoples, to follow strictly their sacred religious laws,
and to await particularly the coming advent of the Messiah. Herzl considered
this point of view sterile.
The Jewish question, he believed, was neither a social
nor religious problem, even though it sometimes took these forms. Boldly he
noted, “.... it is a national question, and to solve it we must first of all
establish it as an international political problem which will have to be
settled by the civilized nations of the world in council." Since the
Jewish question was a national one with international ramifications, it could
only be resolved, Herzl concluded, by the creation of a special instrument to
encompass both these factors: a Jewish State, recognized and secured by
international agreement, to which Jews could migrate and in which they could
freely settle on a large scale.
The rise of the Jewish State, Herzl was convinced, would
put an end to anti-Semitism. He reasoned that, with the large-scale migration
of the bulk of European Jews to the new state, the economic foundations of
anti-Semitism (the modern cause of the evil) would crumble and collapse. Those
Jews who chose to remain behind in the lands of their birth after the creation
of the Jewish State could then easily be absorbed, as all bars to assimilation
would be let down in the absence of economic competition from the Jewish middle
classes.
II
How was this national state to be achieved? The first
step, Herzl believed, was to convince the Jewish people of the need for a
Jewish State. He recognized that if one man were to attempt to create a state
it would be folly, but he believed it practicable if the will of a whole people
were behind it. National consciousness would lead to the awakening of the
national will. "Those Jews who want a state of their own will have
one."
The skills and knowledge the Jews had aquired since their
emancipation would now serve them in laying the foundation of a modern state.
Herzl felt ..... we are strong enough to form a state, and a model state at
that. We have all the human and material resources required for it." Besides,
in recent history other peoples, such as the Greeks, the Romanians, the Serbs,
and the Bulgarians, had successfully attained statehood.
It seemed to Herzl that anti-Semitism would provide the
motive for creating the Jewish State. The sheer force of Jewish suffering and
misery Judennot, would act as a propelling force to set in motion a
migration to the projected state.
Herzl's plan for creating a state called for the
formation of two organizations, the Society of Jews and the Jewish Company. The
Society of Jews would make the plans and take the necessary steps for the
establishment of a state, while the Jewish Company would deal with the economic
interests of the Jews in the countries from which they were emigrating and in
the development of the new state. The Society was to provide the Jews with an
authoritative political organ, explore and educate public opinion, determine
the political preconditions for mass migration, search out a suitable territory
for a state, and negotiate with the Great Powers for its acquisition and for
the granting of a political charter that would guarantee Jewish sovereignty.
Thereafter, the Society of Jews would give instructions to the Jewish Company
concerning immigration, land purchase, and colonization. In addition, the Society
would prepare the legal and administrative groundwork for the future state. In
brief, the Society would be the forerunner of the state; for "to put it in
the terminology of international law, the Society will be recognized as a
state-creating power, and this in itself will mean the formation of the
state."
Of course, the task of establishing a state could not be
carried out without adequate financial support. The Jewish Company would have
the task of supplying such aid. It would help those who chose to leave their
old homes and would organize commerce, trade, and industry in the new country.
Thus the Jewish Company would provide an orderly and equitable method of
liquidating the business interests of Jewish emigrants and compensate the
various countries for the loss of Jewish income and taxes. In the new country
the Jewish Company would purchase land and equipment for settlement, erect
temporary housing for workmen, and provide financial help for incoming
settlers. The Company, as Herzl conceived it, was transitional, and he assumed
that its functions in the new land would eventually be assumed by the state.
How and where would the Company be organized? Herzl felt
that the Jewish Company should be set up as a joint-stock company, incorporated
in England under British laws and protection. Its principal center would be in
London, and the Company's capital would be about one billion marks. Herzl
offered three approaches to the task of creating the capital stock of the
Jewish Company, leaving the selection of the best method to the Society of
Jews, which would use its prestige to establish the credit of the Company among
the Jewish people. It was Herzl's hope that wealthy Jewish financiers would
subscribe the necessary funds. He favored this method because it seemed the
simplest and swiftest means of obtaining the requisite financial resources
while providing investment opportunities with the possibility of a fair return.
His second approach, to be used in the event that the financiers were reluctant
to help, was an appeal to small banks. If this, too, proved unsuccessful, Herzl
proposed to capitalize the Jewish Company through the direct subscription of
funds by the Jewish masses.
How would the Society of Jews, the forerunner of the
state, come into being? Could it legally act on behalf of the Jewish
communities of the world? To answer these questions Herzl drew upon his
knowledge of Roman law, particularly the ancient juridic institution of the negotiorum
gestio. Under this concept, any person or group could protect the property
of an incapacitated or absent party without receiving a war-rant from the owner
to do so. A person acting in this manner derived his mandate from what the law
deemed to be a "higher necessity" and was designated a gestor, the
manager or care-taker of affairs not strictly his own.
A state, Herzl stressed, is created by a nation's
struggle for existence. In the process of such a struggle it is often
impossible to obtain proper authority in due form beforehand. In fact, any
preliminary attempt to obtain a regular decision from the majority would
probably ruin the undertaking at the outset, for partisan divisions would
render the people defenseless against external dangers. "All heads,"
he stated, "cannot be put under the sahat, as the German saying goes. That
is why the gestor simply puts on the hat and leads the way." Action
by the gestor of a state is sufficiently authorized if the dominus (the
principal) is prevented either by want of will or by some other reason from
helping himself. "But through his intervention the gestor becomes
liable to the dominus in a ryianner similar to a contracted
obligation-quasi ex con tractu. This is the legal relationship existing
before, or, more correctly, created simultaneously with, the state."
Since the Jews were dispersed throughout the world, they
were not in a position to conduct their own political affairs, nor could they
protect themselves against common dangers. They were, Herzl believed, unable to
create a state without the help of a gestor. The Jewish gestor, however,
would not be a single individual because such a person would appear ridiculous.
Furthermore, since he might appear to be working for his own gain, he might
seem contemptible. The gestor of the Jews was to be a corporate person,
such as the Society of Jews. After 1897 the gestor became, in fact, the
World Zionist Congress.
Inherent in this theory were the answers to the important
political questions: who shall rule and what group or class should enjoy a
privileged position in the Jewish State? The Society of Jews, or gestor, would
"arise out of the circle of valiant English Jews whom I informed about my
scheme in London." Herzl had in mind the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, an
organization of prominent English Jews. The order, he felt, would either become
the Society of Jews or serve as the model for the Society. In terms of class
structure, the Society, if it closely paralleled its model, would be composed
of an elite of Jewish community leaders, religious, economic, and intellectual,
drawn from the upper and middle classes.
It would be the middle class of Jewry, however, that
would benefit most from a Jewish State. It would be this class that would do
the most to spread the idea of a state and provide the necessary technical and
professional manpower for the national movement.
Once the state was established, Herzl foresaw very little
change in the power structure, no matter what fdrm the government took. Both
power and privilege would remain in the upper and middle classes, with the
latter acting as the backbone of the state's bureaucracy. From the ranks of the
middle class, Herzl predicted, would come a "surplus intelligentsia"
that would provide the state with an aristocracy of talent.
Herzl was convinced that his plans for the intelligentsia
would meet with the latter's full approval. A unity of interest existed between
the needs of the intelligentsia and the needs of the Jewish State. The
differentiation that had marked the rise of this middle class had created a
strong class solidarity. Economic pressures brought about by older and more
firmly established social groups were threatening to destroy this feeling of
union.
The "surplus intelligentsia" of the Jewish
middle class, Herzl believed, would gradually sink and become a helpless
revolutionary-minded proletariat unless its energies were diverted toward the
goal of creating a Jewish State. These factors would be quickly grasped by the
intelligentsia and compel it to support a state that strengthened its claims as
a class. The intelligentsia would secure its own ends and at the same time give
to the state the power and authority it required.
III
Apart from this description of the forces and instruments
that would make possible a national Jewish State, Herzl included in the pages
of The Jewish State many practical suggestions on statecraft. These
ideas, which were in large measure derived from his personal observations and
experiences, made the book more readable and gave additional substance to his
theory of the State.
Herzl buttressed his theoretical concepts with concrete
suggestions on such diverse subjects as agriculture, civil service, treaties,
education, communications, shipping and transport, trade, and taxation. In
addition, he attempted to anticipate and forestall the attacks that he knew
would be made on his book and its blueprint for a Jewish State. Illustrative of
Herzl's thinking and approach to these problems were his comments on capitalism
and its institutions, labor, law, the military, and the press and his defense
against the possible charge that he had written a utopian work.
Like many another Central European thinker in the second
half of the 19th century, Herzl's thoughts on capitalism were strongly
influenced by the ideological struggle between the proponents of
"scientific socialism" and their rivals, the state Socialists."
Herzl was favorably disposed to state socialism and adopted most of the
arguments of this school in his book. Society had grown so complex, he
believed, that the classical concepts of capitalism were in dire need of
revision. What was needed most were positive state-sponsored programs of
political and economic reform and the use of state power to weed Out
speculation and exploitation. The abuses of laissez faire had to be curbed if
capitalism was to survive. Nevertheless, Herzl did not wish to see the demise
of all capitalistic institutions. Thus, for instance, he placed great value on
the need for free enterprise. In his introduction he noticed that the technical
progress achieved in his era had enabled even the "most stupid of men with
his dim vision" to note the appearance of new commodities all about them.
The spirit of free enterprise had created them. Without such enterprise, labor
remained static: "All our material welfare has been brought about by entrepreneurs
. . . the spirit of enterprise shall be encouraged in every way." Risk,
with its reward of profits, was to remain the privilege of private capital. To
assure the healthy growth of private enterprise in his proposed state, Herzl
recommended protective tariffs, state-controlled labor agencies, and a national
bureau of statistical research to aid employers in their daily labor and
marketing problems.
Herzl's views of private property reflected the influence
of Hegelian philosophy, state Socialist tenets, Roman law, and the writings of
the French 18th-century philosopher Montesquieu. Private property, he strongly
felt, was the mainstay of capitalism and also of individual liberty and
therefore had to be freely developed in the Jewish State. Although Herzl was
adamant about the rights of individuals to enjoy private property, he felt no
compunction about the superior right of the state to interfere with private
property rights whenever such action was deemed necessary. Nonetheless, he
stressed that the state act in an equitable manner and not in an arbitrary
fashion.
Herzl's exposure to Hegelian and state Socialist
doctrines also shaped his attitude toward labor. Acutely aware of the seamy
side of laissez faire politics, he vigorously avoided, like his philosophical
mentors, the empty abstractions of the Manchester school of economics. He was
convinced that the Manchester theorists had no appreciation of the higher
duties of the state in the protection of the working class. This basically
paternalistic outlook appears throughout The Jewish Slate and reflects
ideas that had slowly evolved in Herzl's mind and writings during the period
1882-96. Typical of this formative period were his thoughts about labor
outlined in his 1892-93 correspondence with Baron Johann von Chlumecky, a
prominent member of the Austrian Parliament. In these letters Herzl first
stressed the concept which he was later to incorporate and feature prominently
in The Jewish State, that the condition of unskilled, destitute workers
could be ameliorated by a state-sponsored system of work relief (assistance
par le travail).
From the ranks of Jewish unskilled labor drawn chiefly
from the great reservoirs of Russia and Romania, Herzl theorized in The
Jewish State, it would be possible to fashion an army of workers. This
labor force, directed by the Jewish Company and organized along military lines,
would carry out the gigantic physical task of building a viable state. In
accordance with a preplan, its members would construct "roads, bridges,
railways and telegraph installations, regulate rivers and build their own
dwellings." This army, composed solely of volunteers, would operate under
a strict disciplinary code. To stimulate the growth of this labor force, Herzl
recommended promotions for merit, bonuses, pensions, insurance, educational
benefits, and the opportunity to work one's way up to private proprietorship.
In addition, the Jewish Company would build attractive schools for the children
of the labor force and provide numerous social services as well as amusement
centers and religious facilities for their parents.
Furthermore, in the initial state-building phase the army
of unskilled workers, who would not receive pay for their labor, would be fully
protected by the Jewish Company. Herzl felt that a "truck system,"
that is, the practice of paying workmen's wages in goods instead of in money,
would have to be applied in the first few years of settlement. This system
would prevent the labor force from being victimized by unscrupulous merchants.
However, Herzl visualized that payment of wages would be made for overtime work
during this formative period.
The state not only would protect the labor force from
being exploited but would also establish a new legal standard workday, the
seven-hour day. Following the path indicated by such work experiments in
Belgium and England, Herzl suggested that there be "fourteen hours of
labor, but one group of workers will relieve another after a shift of three and
a half hours… In three hours and a half a healthy man can do a great deal of
concentrated work. After a recess of three and a half hour - devoted to rest,
to his family, to his education under guidance-he will be quite fresh again.
Such labor can work wonders. The seven-hour day! It makes possible a total of
fourteen working hours - more than that cannot be put into a day."
So deeply ingrained in his thinking was the seven-hour
day that Herzl considered creating a national flag for the future Jewish state
that would symbolize this work standard for the benefit of the rest of the
world. He suggested "a whit flag with seven gold stars. The white field
signifies our new, pure life; the stars are the seven golden hours of our
working day. For the Jews will move to the new land under the banner of labor."
Women and children were to be excluded from the labor
force. The Jewish Company was to bear the burden of caring for the needs of
these dependents. The homes of the laborers would be built by the labor army
and resemble neither "the dismal workmen's barracks of European towns, nor
the miserable shanties that are lined up around factories." Even though
economies would compel a certain uniformity in construction, all efforts would
be made to create spacious garden towns consisting of dusters of detached
houses. Each labor community would take advantage of the natural conformation
of the land in order to prevent the growth of hypertropic cities. The unskilled
workers, Herzl stressed, would have the opportunity to earn their houses as
permanent possessions by means of their work -"not immediately, but after
three years of good conduct."
Within the sphere of the state, Herzl believed, there
were two distinct kinds of law, the law that governs the state (constitutional)
and the law by which the state governs (ordinary). Although Herzl recognized
the importance of the former, he devoted little attention to it and stressed
instead the development of ordinary law in his proposed state. He emphasized
that when the State began to approach realization, the Society of Jews would appoint
a council of jurists to lay the groundwork for its laws. During the transition
period this council would act on the principle that every immigrant Jew was to
be judged according to the laws of the country he had left behind. Thereafter
legal uniformity was to be sought. The laws would be modern, making use of the
best precedents available, and jndeed might become a model code, embodying all
just social demands.
Herzl's identification of the state with justice
indicated that he had taken a definite stand on the question as to whether the
law was to be above the state or the state above the law. His legal training
compelled him to side against those who placed the state above the law and
exalted the state as a power agency. Yet Herzl was not completely willing to
reject the value of state power if it was used judiciously and for the common
welfare of a nation's citizens.
This balanced approach to the question of state power was
also evident in Herzl's thoughts on the role of the military in the Jewish State.
He stressed that an army would be necessary, if only to preserve order
internally and defend the state against an external enemy. Under no
circumstances, however, would it be used for the aggrandizement of the state,
nor would it ever be allowed to dominate the state.
Herzl felt that public opinion had to have an outlet in a
modern state. The great organs of opinion, particularly the newspapers,
provided such an outlet and were necessary for good government. As the chief
purveyors of news and opinion, the newspapers therefore had a grave
responsibility to their public and their nation. Although freedom of the press
was essential, there were reasonable limitations to such liberty. Libel and
slander, for example, could not be justified under freedom of the press. Herzl
therefore felt that in the Jewish State there should be some limitations to
freedom of the press in order to safeguard innocent people from slander or
libel. As long as a newspaper in the Jewish State did not violate ethical
principles and common decency, however, it could print what it wished. It could
even oppose the government and governmental policy without fear of
recriminations or retaliation.
Herzl greatly feared that many people would consider The
Jewish State utopian. His attitude was understandable in view of the
prevalent ideas of the times. The 19th century had been marked by an unusual
number of publications dealing with the same theme, the need to rebuild or
reform society along modern lines. Some of these works were completely visionary.
Others, notably the books of the French Socialists (Cabet, Fourier, Blanc,
Saint-Simon, Proudhon), were dubbed utopian by the "scientific
Socialists," Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, to discredit their authors
and their themes. The term "utopian' was applied by the Marxists to all
reformers who did not accept the division of society into classes, the
inevitability of class struggle, and the certainty of social revolution.
Apprehensive of such criticism, Herzl met the issue of utopianism head on. In
the preface of his treatise he addressed his would-be critics by noting that
"it would be no disgrace to have written a philanthropic Utopia. I could
achieve an easier literary success-and, as it were, avoid all responsibility-if
I presented my plan in the form of a novel for readers who want to be
entertained. But that would not be the kind of amiable Utopia that has been
produced in such abundance before and after Sir Thomas More. And I think the
situation of the Jews in various countries is bad enough to render such
introductory dalliance superfluous."
In many ways The Jewish State represented a
complete break with utopian tradition. It contained nothing suggestive of a
perfect society, nor did it reveal any tendency to mold individuals into
uniform creatures with identical wants and reactions, devoid of all emotions
and passions. Individuality and individual expression were not to be crushed on
either esthetic or moral grounds. Private property and the family were to
remain intact rather than be sacrificed to the unity of the state, as demanded
by most utopias.
Finally, Herzl's work lacked the symmetry so beloved by
all utopians. The settings of most utopias are invariably artificial and tend
to neglect natural regions in favor of perfectly round islands and perfectly
straight rivers. Herzl dealt with concrete territories: Palestine and
Argentina.
IV
The publication of Der Judenstaat aroused a storm
of controversy almost wparallel in modern Jewish history. Immediately after the
appearance of the first edition (3,000 copies) a vehement campaign was launched
against Herzl and his publisher, Dr. Max Breitenstein. Doubts were expressed
about the personal integrity of the author. The leaders of the Union of
Austrian Jews and of the Vienna Jcwish Community flung bitter reproaches at the
publisher and forced him to issue the first counterbrochure against Herzl's
work (National Judaism, by Chief Rabbi Moritz Gudemann). The press, both
Jewish and non-Jewish, was generally unfavorable to Herzl's plan. A number of
journalists alluded to the adventurer who would like to become king of the
Jews. The Neue Freie Presse, of which Herzl was literary editor, kept
silent about Der Judenstaat and maintained this policy until the
author's death. The Ailgemeine Zeitung of Vienna said that Zionism was a
madness born of despair. The Ailgemeine Zeitung of Munich described the
treatise as a fantastic dream of a feuilletonist whose mind had been unhinged
by Jewish enthusiasm. Even among the Hoveve Zion (Lovers of Zion) there
were many who feared that so clear an exposition of nationalism would cause the
Turkish government to take steps to destroy the Jewish settlements in
Palestine. Assimilationist elements of Western Jewry were disturbed by the
declaration that a Jewish people as such existed and that it constituted a
single entity throughout the world. Similarly, many lay leaders of Western
Jewry and, with few exceptions, the rabbis, both Orthodox and Reform, utterly
condemned Herzl's ideas as contrary to the fundamental principles of Judaism.
The Orthodox opponents were antagonistic because they believed his plans
violated the ancient Messianic idea of Jewish redemption; human realization of
the restoration of Israel was considered futile and impious. They were also
alarmed by Herzl's emphasis on a political and economic solution to the Jewish
question. Many of the Reform rabbis opposed Herzl's theories on the ground that
they negated the doctrine of the ''mission of Israel," that is, the
concept that God desired the Jews to be dispersed among the nations of the
world to teach their neighbors the ideals of ethical monotheism.
On the other hand, The Jewish State was greeted
with enthusiastic support by Jewish youth groups throughout Europe. Disciples,
especially Jewish university students, began to rally around Herzl, and he soon
found himself the leader of a viable nationalistic movement. Prominent men such
as the critic Max Nordau and the poet Richard Beer-Hofmann were swept off their
feet by his message and sang its praises. Others soon followed suit.
However, it was on the Jewish masses of Eastern Europe
that Herzl's ideas made their greatest impression. Little was known there of
the contents of The Jewish State) for it had been kept out of these
areas by Russian censorship. Only its title captured the attention of the Jews,
as did the stories told of the author-the Western Jew who had returned to his
people to lead them to the Promised Land. Thus, overnight Der Judenstaat catapulted
Herzl into the forefront of Jewish political affairs, a position he was to
retain until his untimely death in 1904.
JOSEPH ADLER
>> back